Re: [Synoptic-L] re John Poirier and Lachmann fallacy
- On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:44:46 +1300, Steph <dolfin@...> wrote:
> Are not Funk and Hoover (Five Gospels pp.10-12) guilty of the same crime asAgreed; thanks for the reference.
> Patterson. Point is noted by Mark Goodacre himself in The Case Against Q
> page 21, note 12.
> By the way has Goodacre defended his case in response toThank you. I am working on one at present, as time permits. There
> Kloppenborg's article on mwqh in 2003. I have established that much is
are some comments here:
By the way, there is a new review of The Case Against Q by Christopher
Tuckett in Novum Testamentum 46/4 (October 2004): 401-3.
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology and Religion
University of Birmingham
Elmfield House, Selly Oak tel.+44 121 414 7512
Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...